Urbanization in India

Urbanization is a socio-economic process by which an increasing proportion of the population of an area becomes concentrated into the towns and cities. The term is also defined as the level of population concentration in urban areas.

The proc­ess of urbanization increases both the number and size of towns and cities. Urbanization is the most significant phenomenon of the 20th century which has almost affected all aspects of the national life in India.

Being the second most populous country in the world after China India's fast growing urbaniza­tion has a regional as well as world-wide impact. India's urban population constitutes a sizeable pro­portion of the world's urban population.

This can be well corroborated from the fact that every 12th city dweller of the world and every 7th of the developing countries is the Indian. India has as many small towns (population 20,000-49,999) as in the United States as many as medium towns (population 50,000 - 99,999) as in the former Soviet Union; as many cities (population 100,000-499,999) as in the United States; and as many metropolises (population+500,000) as in Australia, France and Brazil combined.

India has a long tradition of urbanization which has continued since the days of the Indus Valley civilization. According to an estimate the percentage share of urban population to total popu­lation was higher in the last part of the 17th century in comparison to the last part of the 19th century.

The development of cottage industries and tertiary ac­tivities during the medieval period helped in the evolution of about 3,200 towns and 120 cities in the country around 1586 A.D. (Raza, M, 1985, p. 60). The damage to this indigenous industrial structure during the colonialism gave a serious blow to the process of urbanization. The roots of the existing process of urbanization lie in Western model of factory industries which started developing in the country during the early part of the 20th century.

Urbanization, in India, can be studied through Census data provided at a regular interval of 10 years since 1881 onwards. These data help us in analyzing the trends of growth in the urban popula­tion, decennial increase, and urbanization and number towns during the 20th century. At the time of the reliable Census taken in 1881 the urban population contributed 9.3 per cent of the total population of the country.

The growth-trend was sluggish and even negative in some decades (1911-21) due to outbreak of epidemic (plague) and natural calamities, trend of slow growth in urbanization continued unto 1931. The decade 1931-41 observed about 32 cent growth in the urban population which increase' its share in total population to 14.1 percent. The growth trend was further accelerated during the following decade which witnessed a decennial growth of 41.42 per cent (Table 28. II) Raising the percentage share to 14.1. Here rehabilitation of refugees from Pakistan into cities played a significant role.

During 1951-61 the growth trend was slowed down (26.4 per cent) which contributed marginal increase (percent) in the urbanization ratio. It was due to change in the definition of urban places and declassification of 803 towns in 1961 Census. Since 1961 onward there has been steep rise in the urban population and urbanization ratio so as to reach its highest point during 1971-81 (decadal growth being 46.02 percent and addition of record number of 900 new towns). This was the peak point in the urban growth of the country during the 20th century.

The trend of growth has been slightly slowed down during 1981-91 (39.32 per cent) and 1991-2001 (31.48 per cent) which is a matter of serious study by urban geographers and urban sociologists. Causes may be many folds including increasing pollution, decreasing opportunities of employment and liveli­hood in urban areas and development of new sources of livelihood in rural areas to reduce the flow of rural migrants.

Above description leads us to conclude that during the last 90 years of the 20th century the number of towns has increased by 144.6 per cent,, urban population by 140,23 per cent, and urbaniza­tion ratio by 133,6 per cent. Industrialization con­comitant with economic development and rural to urban migration has made significant contribution towards this phenomenal growth. But compared with developed countries this rate of urbanisation is still slower. Wulker has rightly observed that while in Western countries urbanization is expanding to­wards rural areas but in India rural life is influencing the urban areas.

On the basis of the above description three distinct phases may be identified in the trends of Indian urbanization during the 20th century:

(1) Period of Slow Urbanization

This includes the early part of the 20th cen­tury (1901-31) in which famines, epidemics and high mortality in population restricted the decadal urban growth to less than 1 per cent (sometimes even negative growth). During these three decades the urban population grew at an average annual rate of 0.98 per cent and percentage share of urbanisa­tion at a rate of 0.36 per cent per annum.

(2) Period of Medium Urbanization

This includes the period between 1931 and 1961. The year 1931 marks a significant demo­graphic divide in the history of urban growth in the country. during this period urban population of the country grew by 45.46 million (135.86 per cent) and urbanization ratio from 12.2 per cent to 18.3 per cent (50 per cent). This was the beginning of the era of planned development in the country through Five Year Plans which led to the establishment of a number of big industries on mod­ern lines. This provided sound base for urban devel­opment.

(3) Period of Rapid Urbanization

After 1961 due to the stabilization of the economic development the urban development got momentum. Consequently the urban population of the country increased from 78.93 million in 1961 to 217.2 million in 1991 showing a percentage growth of 175.2 per cent. The number of urban centers increased by 1990 (73.7 percent), and urbanization ratio by 7.4 per cent (40.43 per cent) during the same period.

This growth is significant from the point of view that it is much higher than the rate of natural increase; annual growth rate being 3.93 and 2.38 per cent respectively. Infect the country is passing through the phase of urban explosion as a result of which urban centers have become the hub of economic activities and are generating great pull over the rural population.

At state-level Manipur has recorded highest increase in urbanization ratio (19.01 per cent) during 1961 -91 followed by Nagaland (12.09), Kerala (11.33) and Maharashtra (10.51 per cent). On the other hand Himachal Pradesh (2.36 per cent), West Bengal (2.94), Assam (3.71), Bihar (4.75) and Sikkim (4.90 per cent) have observed much lower increase than the national average (7.42 per cent).

Census of India 1971, Part II-A, General Population Tables.

Bose, A., 1991: Demographic Diversity of India, 1991 Census, B.R. Pub. Corp., Delhi Census of India 2001.

Although, the average size of an urban center was in the neighborhood of 65,000, yet over 65 per cent of the country's urban population lived in Class

I towns, each housing more than 100, 000 inhabit- having a population of more than 50,000. The real Ants (cf. 22.93 per cent in 1901). There were 300 3,052 remaining urban centers with population such urban centers in India housing 6 out of every 10 smaller than the average size of an urban centre urban dwellers of the country.

Class II and III towns the country which together contribute less than] numbering 345 and 944 respectively only contribute per cent of the country's urban population. Among 10.95 and 13.19percentofthecountry'stotal urban these class V and VI towns numbering 938 ski population. Thus over 76 per cent of the country's only 2.89 per cent of the countries total urban population lives in 645 urban centers each population

Industrial Development of India

In this twentieth century when science and technology have gained unquestionable supremacy, the level of the' industrial develop­ment of a country has become the yardstick to be applied to judge its actual development. All other progress has become meaningless; if a country is technologically backward, it is backward irrespective of any other excellence it might have acquired.

It is a well-known fact that British Government never inten­ded to develop the industries in our country during pre-independence period. After independence the people of this country entertained high hopes from the government for the betterment of their life it is the industrial development which provides basic infrastructure necessary for the development of the economy as a whole. Industrial Policy, 1948 and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 gave an idea of the attitude of the Government with regard to the development of industries. But, it was only the adoption of planning in 1951 which created a favorable atmosphere for the development of industries.

The history of organized industry in India may be traced to 1854 when the real beginning of the cotton mill industry was made in Bombay. The foundations of jute industry were laid near Calcutta in 1855, Coal-mining also progressed about this time. There were the only major industries which had developed substan­tially before the First World War. During and after World war I and II, a somewhat more liberal policy was adopted by the authorities, such as, a discriminating protection policy, which gave impetus to industrial development. Several industries developed and a number of new industries came up but their production was neither adequate nor diversified in character.

The development of the economy can be measured with the help of different criteria, such as the growth rate in industrial out­put, industry's contribution to national income, and industry's contribution to employment. A close application of these criteria divides the planned period into two distinct phases, the first lasting till 1965-66 and the second following there from. The economy took rapid strides daring the first three Five-year Plans but slowed down later. The Seventh Plan envisages a growth rate of 8 percent with some segments of industry registering a higher growth rate, but only time can unfold the future achievement. Since indus­try's contribution to national income and its capacity to generate employment have displayed similar trends, we cannot describe our industrial development as spectacular though there has been a spurt of new industrial complexes all over the country.

The pattern of our industrial growth was determined by the state of economy in which the British left us. The British had used India as a source of cheap raw material and a lucrative market for finished products and they had not made any effort to develop the infrastructure. After getting independence, India immediately felt the need of capital goods and it was decided to promote the rapid growth of capital goods industries. Almost till the end of the Third Five-Year-Plan, India had to import a variety of capital goods inclu­ding iron and steel, transport equipment and various kinds of machinery. But the situation has radically changed now. India is now in a position to export these capital goods even to the technologi­cally advanced countries of Western Europe, America, Soviet Union etc.

A significant feature of our industrial development has been the phenomenal growth of the public sector. This sector comprises public utility services like the railways, road transport, post and telegraph, power and irrigation projects, departmental undertakings of the Central and State Governments including the defence produc­tion establishments, and a number of other industrial undertakings which are wholly supported by the Central Government. The public sector now contributes about one-fifth of the share of industrial sector in the national income and the surpluses earned by it form an important source of non-tax revenue of the Government. It also offers job opportunities to a large number of people.

If we aim at an accurate assessment of our achievement, we should either compare our industrial growth with the growth in other countries during the corresponding period or, we should measure our achievement in terms of our targets. Another yardstick can be to compare our achievement with our needs. This kind of assess­ment can be quite revealing. In 1947, Japan was in no better a position than India. If India had been ruthlessly exploited by the British and fiercely rocked by communal hatred; violence and blood­shed in the wake of partition, Japan was laid waste by atom bombs during the Second World War. But today, Japan is technologically one of the most advanced countries of the world. Our achievement has also fallen short of the targets laid down in the Five-year Plans. If we compare our performance with our needs and targets it is obvious that what we have achieved is too inadequate to meet them.

Industrialization in India suffers from a few obvious draw­backs. Though the aim of industrialization has been to bring amelioration to the miserably poor millions, somehow economic power and wealth have been concentrating in a few hands and the masses have, by and large, been left un-benefited. The industrial licensing policy which is only an adjunct to the industrial policy has given rise to many evils, economic, social and political. This breeds unrest among the poor, and the labourers employed in big industrial houses often resort to strikes and lock-outs, giving a serious blow to the productivity of the system. Finally, regional disparities and imbalances that should have been eliminated by now still persist. There exist m India a few pockets that have regis­tered rapid economic development while a few areas find them­selves utterly neglected.

Almost every plan has revealed that industrial production fell short of the target by a wide margin but, then, there are some inherent shortcomings in our planning system. It need not be emphasized that planning has widened the horizon of industrial sector and opened new vistas of industrial growth.

Industrialization

The demand in Europe for cotton to make clothing and Britain’s easy access to coal deposits both sparked industrialization. At first, industrialization was isolated to Great Britain alone. Factory owners there knew that they were ahead in the game and forbade the export of technology, techniques or skilled workers abroad. Many entrepreneurs disobeyed laws enacted to prevent the export of this new knowledge and exported it anyways. Soon, industrialization had spread to France, Germany, Belgium and the United States. Coal, glass, and armaments production was successful in Belgium. France became advanced in the metallurgical industry. German coal and iron production soared. In the Americas, cotton was grown in the south for garment and textile production in New England. The cotton and textiles industries were major business in the early stages of industrialization but it soon spilled over into other industries. (Bentley, Ziegler and Streets, 2008)

The Industrial Revolution resulted in the innovation of many new machines and methods of production;

The steam engine: Developed in 1785 by Scottish inventor James Watt, the general purpose steam engine made the steam engine more applicable to a wider range of machinery. In 1815, George Stephenson built the first steam-powered locomotive. This further enabled steam ships and railroads to transport large cargoes cheaply and connected remote areas with industrialized regions and ports. (Bentley, 2008)

The Bessemer converter: Built in 1856 by Henry Bessemer, it was a refined blast furnace which made it possible for large quantities of Iron and steel to be produced quickly and inexpensively. (Bentley, 2008)

The flying shuttle: Invented in 1733 by Manchester mechanic John Kay, it sped up the weaving process by enabling it to be mechanized. (Bentley, 2008)

The water-driven loom: Built in 1785 by Edmund Cartwright, it paved the way for the loom to be steam powered and made hand looms virtually obsolete. (Bentley, 2008)

The cotton gin: Invented in 1793 by American inventor Eli Whitney, mechanized the separation of cotton fibers from seeds. (Bentley, 2008)

Mass production of standardized articles: A technique developed by Eli Whitney using machine tools to make interchangeable parts in the production of firearms. A skilled worker could make one part that fit every musket of the same model. The method was eventually applied to the making of other products such as clocks, shoes and uniforms. (Bentley, 2008)

The assembly line: Invented by Henry Ford in 1913, he applied it to the production of automobiles. Each worker along the conveyer belt performed a specialized task as opposed to building an entire item themselves. This sped up production considerably. (Bentley, 2008)

The factory system: Due to the size and cost of new machinery, it was necessary for the workplace to be moved from the home to a large building where multiple workers were employed.

Factory workers earned meager wages and often lived in squalor. They also worked long hours, on average twelve to fourteen hours six days a week. Conditions could be dangerous and there was always a risk of being maimed or fatally injured my machinery. Housing consisted of apartments with multiple families dwelling in one unit with no plumbing or electricity.

Instead of being home or in school, women and children joined the labor force and earned smaller wages than men. Even when pregnant, women worked in harsh conditions and children were not afforded any special treatment either.

Factory work had a negative effect on the workers because of the awful conditions they were forced to work in. Pay was barely enough to survive on. The exhausting nature of the work itself, not to mention the lack of safety precautions, took a toll on them both physically and mentally.

Industrialization had a significant overall effect on the world because it transformed agrarian and handicraft-centered economies into ones based on industry and machinery manufacturing. The need to invest in expensive factory equipment contributed to the development of large businesses and corporations. It moved the center of family life from the home to the factory because mothers, fathers and children all worked there. New cities were built and old ones expanded to meet the high demand for housing. Immigrants flooded into industrialized areas in search of opportunities. Areas of the world rich in natural resources found a source of income in them due to the high demand factories created by running off of them. Pollution and exploitation of raw material were intensified. More efficient modes of transportation came about and the world became much smaller because of it. In the long run, workers rights and children’s rights had to be improved and even a higher standard of living was a result. (Bentley, 2008)

Industrialization

Around 1770, Britain made some remarkable advances in the field of manufacturing industry, Pruning and transport giving it a position of world economic leadership that she was to retain for well over a century. These achievements were remarkable and they came in the first place in terms of technological innovations in a cluster of industries - the Watt steam engine, the mechanization of cotton spinning and weaving, the production of coke-smelted pig iron in blast furnaces and of large quantities of iron products by extruding and rolling, the first railway lines and so forth, which reinforced each other. Initially they were of limited importance to the whole country.

However soon this became an unbroken chain of inventions and innovations leading to an irreversible improvement in the way of making things. The rapid advances in science and technology led to development and changes in industrial organization. The Factory-system became the dominant mode of production - and it caught the eyes of contemporary observers. This system meant of course the concentration of the work force, a new discipline within the workplace, which had been unknown of in previous times. Large factories could make full use of the potential of new technologies, for example steam driven engines; this meant large gains in productivity, on a scale never previously experienced. Factories were designed to turn out cheap mass produced goods, such as cotton and woolen yarn, cotton cloth, cast metal goods etc.

These changes though far-reaching, did not happen all at once. In fact, recent research has shown that the Industrial Revolution in Britain was much slower than had been previously thought, and that the new technologies lived, for a long time, side by side with older pre-manufacturing technologies. For example, waterpower was still very important and prevailed over steam power in the United Kingdom (UK) well into the 19lh century and craftsmen and their workshops remained for a long time far more important in aggregate terms than modern factories. A few points stand out, however. These are:

·         The process of industrialization in the UK happened in a unique and totally unplanned way; it could not have been planned, since it had never happened before.

·         It was also slower to take full shape than previously believed and certainly slower than in the Continent later on, when industrialization could be encouraged, stimulated, copied from Britain at least to some extent.

·         The fact that industrialization was slow does not mean that it was less radical and impressive.

·         Initially dramatic progress took place in various scattered branches of industry and it did not affect the large bulk of the country. However, with one development feeding upon another, eventually the whole country was transformed and the changes began to show up everywhere.

·         Some changes were very dramatic, and in fact more dramatic in Britain than anywhere else.

·         The question arises, why was Britain the first? A wide range of answers has been given to this question. The unique advantages of Britain were:

·         A stable, relatively open political system, which allowed for efficient public finances and encouraged the development of a capital market. Also, it made possible for Britain to fight and win wars and to keep a large, powerful navy, thus capturing vital foreign markets.

·         Advanced and commercial agricultural system that was able to support the growing population by sustained rises in productivity.

·         A remarkable growth in population since 1750, which provided an enormous workforce as also consumers to the economy.

Spread of the Industrial Revolution to the rest of Europe: There was not a very big development lag between Britain and the rest of Europe. This probably was because of the geographical proximity of Britain and the northwestern corner of the continent. Considering the period between 1750 and 1820 embracing most of France, the Low Countries, part of the German States and Scandinavia, Switzerland and also Northern Italy and the most advanced parts of the Hapsburg Empire - it may be noted that a long process of capital accumulation had taken place, incomes were higher as a result of moderate economic progress throughout many decades.

Capital, labour and land markets were fairly developed. The society was open and commercial and it had, largely, broken away from feudalism. Skills were widespread among the population, and there was a record of technological progress. Although the nobility was still very powerful, the influence of the bourgeoisie (merchants, investors, professionals etc) had been growing for some time and in many towns, the bourgeoisie were the leading class. Agriculture had made important progress and there were important areas of domestic industry organized in far reaching commercial networks. Finally, international trade was in the hands of not only the British, but also shared by Dutch, French, German and Danish merchant houses.

All this did not prevent Britain from leaping ahead in the process of industrialization, but the gap was never so wide that the other countries could not expect to fill it in a reasonably short time. The preconditions were certainly there. In fact, the gap between Britain and North West Europe was much less than that between the most advanced areas of Europe and the more backward ones, in the South and East of the continent. When around 1800 to 1820 it was clear that Britain was forging ahead, the other advanced parts of Western Europe sought to first keep in step and then to catch up. The stage was set for a remarkable period of economic development and industrialization across the continent.

To understand whether there was an Industrial Revolution in the whole of Europe, it is necessary to remember the great variety and variation in the continent as there were more advanced and more backward countries in Europe which were significant for tackling industrialization. On one side were countries like Germany, Belgium and France that were early followers of Britain and successfully industrialized by 1860-70; on the other were countries like Russia that started industrializing at the end of the 19th century while Spain hardly succeeded in industrializing at all before 1914. Countries in the South-East of Europe were even further behind. Countries like Denmark or the Netherlands had very advanced agricultural sectors while Belgium concentrated on heavy industry.